Sorry your browser is not supported!

@Bear--- No I didn't see it. I'm not a fan of that show... but now I'm sad that my idea isn't so unique

Don't worry Jeku, they used a rocket and wasted fuel, then it swung back around and was about to hit them, so they launched another trash ball at it. The catapult method would have been cheaper and less devastating in the long run, heh heh.

I personally beleive in my theory.

A Nuke has a tremendous amount of power in it. You could reduce the trip to MARS by 100th of the time with that kind of power. But if you have a ship that can survive a nuke detonating below it... twice, then why can't it just fall down into the ocean like the old rocket ships?

P.S. we will never build a ship from orbit. Unless we really wish to waste money. Can you imagine what it would cost to get 2500 people up in a space station, with higer wages, and constantly sending shuttles to provide materials? Yeah... although they could cut down a few things...

It would probably cut down on a lot.

1. Weight issues are gone. No more heavy machinery to lift things up and take them places.

2. Less can be spent on environmental testing, because you're building it in pretty much the same environment in which it's intended to be used.

3. If you could provide a stationary launch platform in orbit then you would spend less fuel, not having to break through the atmosphere.

4. Less people needed because there's less machinery to operate and less things to test.

Now you have the drifting issue... parts don't stay where they were unless you duct tape them



They still need to test it, I can build a powerplant in the middle of the city, but I would still need to have the designs tested to make sure that it will follow regulations. And NASA doesn't test rockets after they are build, but before. They take each peice and submit it to the maximum (+ some) stress that will occur under abnormal conditions. These condtions aren't like every day happenings in space, so each part will still need to be tested.



But you would still need to send fuel up... and food, oxygen, water, (NASA is too lazy to build a simple ecosystem for these, or rather impliment it).



There will still be machinery, just diffrent machinery, and the reason there are high numbers of people working on a project is because there are very few people working on the same part. Each part needs to be built, tested, rebuilt, and retested.

The only things you eliminate are materials. You don't need heat resistant tiles, nor big engines. Just the stuff to get you outside of the atmosphere.

On Earth pieces would fall to the ground and lie there if you didn't duct tape them to something. Workers and the equipment they work with are all moving in orbit in relative velocities, haven't you ever watched the NASA channel?




Have you ever seen any facilities where they test space equipment? Among other things, some of the most important things they test is how the equipment holds up to an air vaccum, varying temperatures, and vibration. The machines to test this are extraordinarily expensive, and you would eliminate a good chunk of the air vaccum tests at the very least. As for the other things, if they don't work out in space we've still got them down here.




At this point an ecosystem may be a bit extreme. You would need to send regular supplies of manufactured parts and replacement workers anyway (that's how they constructed the international space station), so it's no problem to send stuff up.




Are we talking about all the people who make equpiment for the space shuttle? If that's the case your aforementioned 2500+ workers is an incredibly large understatement. NASA in addition to producing much of the material in-house also contracts external companies for various other parts of their spacecraft; we're not talking po-dunk little circuit companies, you're looking at incredibly large corporations (think Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and General Dynamics), and they have thousands of employees working on NASA projects in addition to NASA's own personnel. Each of these companies would be able to spend less on testing equipment and testing employees (they typically have separate departments for testing) because NASA would have a cheaper and faster solution in orbit.


I'm a little confused by this, the whole point of getting the big engines installed on the spacecraft after breaking the Earth's atmosphere is fuel conservation so we are able to get further on the same tank of gas. Heat resistant tiles are not necessary only for breaking the atmosphere, but also re-entering it.

haven't you ever watched the NASA channel?
Yep. It is nice watching the earth slowly spin off of a sat cam

As for what I said, I ment that gravity served us to keep things in place (or make them fall down) the absence of gravity would mean that we would need to spend extra time to fasten everything down. All it takes is a small force, and a lot of time.

Actually, yes, I went to JFK. The tests would have to take place in the same place as the materials are being built for it to be cost effeciant (and practical). In the end run, the ship peices would end up being built on earth, and then assembled in space, but you'll spend alot of money just bringing the parts up there.

Personally, I think NASA really needs to start looking at mini-ecosystems. If you have a large section devoted to plant life on your space station, you will be able to operated independently from earth. And if a space shuttle delivery fails, you will have confort in the fact that the space station is self sustaining.

Only reason I listed 2500 was because I couldn't envision any more people being up in space at the same time. Sort of counter productive thinking that will get me fired.

I was figuring that you would still have shuttles going back and forth, so, why make the ship for re-entry at all, just have a shuttle ferry you to the ship and earth.

I'm telling you, that once you get people and the equipment in orbit with the launch pad or construction site or whatever you don't really need to strap much down, velcro for the small stuff, and whatever sort of rope they use for the big stuff at most.




But they're already shipping parts up whenever they need to fix things in orbit. Also, why spend money on complicatec testing environments when you could be up in a space station building it where you can do an considerablyly larger number of tests, and do existing ones more accurately.




If we're constructing space ships that will eventually travel to Mars we'll need entry into its atmosphere. Or, at the last include a lander/shuttle with sufficient tools that can enter and exit the atmosphere.


[quote]Personally, I think NASA really needs to start looking at mini-ecosystems. If you have a large section devoted to plant life on your space station, you will be able to operated independently from earth. And if a space shuttle delivery fails, you will have confort in the fact that the space station is self sustaining./quote]

That would be brilliant.